DfT Stats - 2009

"Justin" wrote in message
...

On 27 nov, 05:14, JMS wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:38:32 -0800 (PST), PhilO
wrote:

snip

I wondered why you didn't post a link to the data. Did you not want
others to see it? I found it he
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...ions/modal/pas...

Thanks for letting me know these figures were out.

PhilO

Of course I knew that no other poster would know where to find the
figures.

But bugger me - you have managed to. I suppose you had quite a clue
with :

"I see the DfT have published the latest stats for 2009"

You can try and put any gloss on the figures - yes the number actually
killed was three down on last year.

I understand that that is because the numbers using cycle helmets has
gone up again - hence fewer deaths as the accident rate goes up.

But in a nutshell - of all modes of transport - the only killed or
seriously injured figure which went up per billion miles traveled was
cycling.

KSI for all other modes went down.

travelled! Nice mistake from someone who choses to comment on others'
English.
=================

Mr Lewis sir, you are not in the classroom now in front of a room full of
Dutch schoolchildren. In the adult world, even educated adults make typos
when writing. That includes me and probably you as well.

On 27 nov, 12:22, "Mr. Benn" wrote:
"Justin" *wrote in message

...

On 27 nov, 05:14, JMS wrote:



On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:38:32 -0800 (PST), PhilO
wrote:

snip

I wondered why you didn't post a link to the data. Did you not want
others to see it? I found it he
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...ions/modal/pas....

Thanks for letting me know these figures were out.

PhilO

Of course I knew that no other poster would know where to find the
figures.

But bugger me - you have managed to. *I suppose you had quite a clue
with :

"I see the DfT have published the latest stats for 2009"

You can try and put any gloss on the figures - yes the number actually
killed was three down on last year.

I understand that that is because *the numbers using cycle helmets has
gone up again - hence fewer deaths as the accident rate goes up.

But in a nutshell - of all modes of transport - the only killed or
seriously injured figure *which went up per billion miles traveled was
cycling.

KSI for all other modes went down.

travelled! Nice mistake from someone who choses to comment on others'
English.
=================

Mr Lewis sir, you are not in the classroom now in front of a room full of
Dutch schoolchildren. *In the adult world, even educated adults make typos
when writing. *That includes me and probably you as well.

Exactly. However, JMS does choose to address and belittle people for
having done so. I merely elected to point out the hypocrisy of that
position.

Justin wrote:

Has anyone any idea what JMS's agenda is when she posts this half-
information? She refuses to be unequivocal about this.

She's a troll and that's what trolls do. Why they do it is a mystery to
all but themselves. She is reaching a trivial number of cyclists by
posting here and almost all those she does reach find her entertaining
rather than annoying. Oh and she has a stalker's crush on Guy.

--
Tony

Phil W Lee wrote:

Because it undermines it's case.

Who do you think is belittled by the use of "it" instead of she? Here's
a clue, it's not Judith.

Here's another, it's you.

Justin wrote:

What JMS and others resolutely avoid mentioning is that the danger to
cyclists is predominantly formed by motorised traffic

snort Here we go with the cycling "lets repeat something a lot and
hope it is true" coupled with "in any collision make the motorist
responsible".

If cyclists stopped riding like ****s and ignoring red lights their
accident rate would reduce. If cyclists cannot voluntarily respect the
Highway Code then it is high time for compulsory registration, licensing
and insurance. And it's long overdue that the police actually do
something about the ****s on bikes.

On 27/11/2010 12:04, Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:

Has anyone any idea what JMS's agenda is when she posts this half-
information? She refuses to be unequivocal about this.

She's a troll and that's what trolls do. Why they do it is a mystery to
all but themselves. She is reaching a trivial number of cyclists by
posting here and almost all those she does reach find her entertaining
rather than annoying. Oh and she has a stalker's crush on Guy.

Is the Judith still about? I haven't seen anything from it for months,
obviously it's moved on (slightly) and isn't using the same language
anymore so I don't get to see the random posts from it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 27/11/2010 03:16, Derek C wrote:
also note that cycling has a much higher death and serious injury
rate than cars or vans.

yes, cars are much more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than
cyclists and pedestrians are to drivers. Well done for highlighting the
important question: "dangerous to whom?". Also well done for drawing
attention to the documented fact that cycling is not dangerous, the
problem is just that cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable; this is of
course best tackled by modifying the behaviour of the dangerous, not the
vulnerable.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8TDAAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/CFMH/RiB+vPMjHaya76SD3GfpH7N
l9dBwuzdad4o+Mg8pIQJMtWchwgME7XhPREIP17/3BUvZWNLZGMJ0di03OATM0Qs
8wOQvwNFNO4hvczl4pDnrCt5t8W6velsWJOhDaiD4qRW3BCcAT Axr+JBETnvD1v/
l/5NHjDzspaIf3qMNJf54ANTiJXdD9WRXfZQuT29wIgCe+q3Ekq1 hOezSm6rT7E8
mUxtlw95HQy7aTg5dTpALOSLRj+TqxRiLyfuRO9E669GrrsfVM EyxidHVKWHwr9L
8zS6D7wZFHWxyfUutFZ58Mx1Zs1B8aWxCjccNbOX8d3UAZZvYo VxHti1iaG4j1M=
=q1xQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article , PhilO wrote:
On Nov 26, 2:01*pm, JMS wrote:

Judith,

Are you deliberately trying to deceive?

Is the Pope Catholic?

On Nov 27, 4:24*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 27/11/2010 03:16, Derek C wrote:

also note that cycling has a much higher death and serious injury
rate than cars or vans.

yes, cars are much more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than
cyclists and pedestrians are to drivers. Well done for highlighting the
important question: "dangerous to whom?". Also well done for drawing
attention to the documented fact that cycling is not dangerous, the
problem is just that cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable; this is of
course best tackled by modifying the behaviour of the dangerous, not the
vulnerable.

- --
Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Simple question. If cycling is not dangerous, then why do cyclists
have such a high casualty rate? Could this be down to law-breaking,
lack of skill, lack of common sense, and not riding defensively?

Derek C

In article ,
Derek C wrote:

Simple question. If cycling is not dangerous, then why do cyclists
have such a high casualty rate? Could this be down to law-breaking,
lack of skill, lack of common sense, and not riding defensively?

As you trolls have been told many times before, cyclists do NOT
have a particularly high casualty rate - it's comparable with
pedestrians.

The reason that it is higher than car drivers and passengers is
that those have a ton of steel to protect them from their own
imbecilities - which is the main reason that they are responsible
for most of the casualties of more vulnerable road users.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.